It's time to remove the convention hurdle for Iowa primary winners

Delegates raise their hands while voting on changes to their platform Saturday, April 30, 2016, during the 3rd District Democratic Convention at Southwestern Community College in Creston.(Photo: Scott Morgan/For the Register)Buy Photo

It’s time to banish the specter of nominating conventions from Iowa’s primary elections.

Throughout the primary election campaign, a dominant theme was the possibility that several high-profile races could be decided not by voters but by a small group of activists at party conventions.

As it turned out, only one statewide race — the GOP nomination for secretary of agriculture — will be decided at the state convention. That’s because no candidate reached the magic 35 percent of the vote needed to win the nomination.

Mike Naig, the sitting ag secretary, missed the mark by three-tenths of a percentage point. He received 34.7 percent of the vote; his closest rival, Dan Zumbach, had 21.4 percent. Three other candidates were also on the ballot for the seat. Naig was appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds after Republican Bill Northey’s appointment to a U.S. Department of Agriculture position.

Mike Naig(Photo: Contributed)

Now, instead of the 30,000-plus Republican voters who chose Naig on Tuesday, the nomination will be decided by a few hundred state convention delegates on June 16. The delegates may choose the top vote-getter in the primary — but don’t have to.

Delegates don’t even have to choose one of the candidates who ran in the primary.

Nominating conventions do have their place. They're still the best way to fill vacancies on the ballot, such as to replace a candidate who drops out or passes away.

Those circumstances aside, nominating conventions have disadvantages beyond the aspect of replacing delegates’ judgment for party voters’. They prolong the nominating campaign two weeks or sometimes longer. That gives the opposing party a head start on fundraising and organizing for the general election.

The prospect of a nominating convention also forces primary candidates to run parallel campaigns, one for primary voters and a second targeting a small group of activists and elites whose views on issues may not represent the majority of party voters. It’s time-consuming and distracting.

The potential for a nominating convention also gives weaker candidates an incentive to stay in the race, hoping for a second chance. That worked for Young. It expands choices for voters, and that’s not a bad thing. But it may be to the party’s disadvantage if false hope ends up diluting resources better directed toward the strongest contenders.

NEWSLETTERS

Get the Register Opinion newsletter delivered to your inbox

We're sorry, but something went wrong

A sneak preview of the newest editorials, columns and opinions from The Des Moines Register.

There are some beneficial aspects of nominating conventions. The need to avoid alienating delegates tends to elevate the risk involved in negative campaigning. One reason Young was the ultimate convention pick in 2014 was that he was an inoffensive second choice for many delegates. The Democratic campaign for governor was relatively light on negative campaigning and personal attacks until the final days.

Some of the alternatives to nominating conventions could have the same positive effect without cutting primary voters out of the choice.

The Iowa Senate in 2017 unanimously passed a bill requiring a run-off election between the top two primary vote-getters. The measure was not considered in the Iowa House, however. Runoffs are more democratic than nominating conventions, but they have some of the same disadvantages. They prolong the primary campaign, and they’re expensive.

A better choice would be instant-runoff voting. That’s when voters rank all candidates by order of preference. If no one wins 35 percent of the vote outright, the lowest-ranked candidate would be eliminated and results recalculated until a candidate achieves the required number of votes. It would require voter education but should be less costly and time-consuming than a separate run-off election. It also likely would maintain the incentive for a positive campaign.

A simpler alternative would be to do away with the 35 percent threshold and simply nominate the top primary vote-getter. The main barrier to that proposal is the notion that a party nominee who can’t muster that share of the vote would have less chance of winning the general election. But a convention nomination does nothing tangible to improve a candidate’s odds.

If a candidate who wins only 15.5 percent of the primary vote can win the nomination at convention, as Young did, the 35 percent margin can’t be all that important. Would the fact that Mike Naig was 0.3 percentage points short of 35 percent torpedo his chances in the general election? Probably not.

Voters should encourage legislative and gubernatorial candidates to propose legislation to do away with the 35 percent rule, save time and money and keep voters in charge of their ballot choices.